coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lived in Izmir.
7.  On 29 December 1995 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). He was fourteen years' old at the time.
8.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant was brought before the İzmir State Security Court and he was placed in detention on remand.
9.  On 15 October 1996, taking into account the applicant's age at the time of the offence, the İzmir State Security Court held that he could not have been aware of the nature and consequences of the offence and decided that there was no need to impose a penalty on him.
10.  On 20 August 1997 the applicant applied to the Bergama Assize Court and sought compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.
11.  On 31 March 1998 the Bergama Assize Court awarded the applicant 59,925,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 150,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
12.  On 28 December 1998 the Court of Cassation held that the applicant, who was a student at the time of the events, had not submitted any documents or reasons which could support his pecuniary damage claims. It therefore quashed the judgment of the first instance court.
13. On 28 January 1999 the proceedings resumed before the Bergama Assize Court. The court decided to hold a hearing on 5 March 1999. The applicant and his representative were summoned to attend the hearing. On 21 February 1999 the applicant's representative submitted a petition to the Court and stated that the applicant should be awarded adequate compensation. Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the hearing which was held before the Bergama Assize Court on 5 March 1999. On 10 March 1999 the Bergama Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 150,000,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and dismissed his claims for pecuniary damage. The court held that the applicant, who was a student at the time of the events, had not been in paid employment. It further decided not to apply default interest to the sum awarded for non-pecuniary damage.
14.  On 25 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment[1].
15.  On 21 June 2007 the applicant's parents were paid 150 New Turkish liras (YTL)[2].
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gaziantep.
6.  On 14 January 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terror branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
7.  On 23 January 1995 he was brought before a single judge of the Izmir State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.
8.  On 13 February 1995 the principal public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
9.  On 2 December 1998 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account the applicant's behaviour during the trial, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.
10.  On 17 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Izmir State Security Court.
11.  On 26 April 2000 the Court of Cassation's decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant's representative.
12.  On 1 June 2000 the Court of Cassation's decision was deposited with the registry of the First Instance Court.
13.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616, which governed the conditional release, suspension of proceedings or execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. The law stipulated that parole would not be applicable to persons who had committed offences under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Thus, the applicant could not benefit from Law no. 4616.
4.  The applicant, Mr Artur Warsiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bytów.
5.  The applicant was charged with drug trafficking and detained on remand from 6 April 2002 to 21 May 2004. He was detained in the Słupsk Detention Centre.
6.  On 28 May 2003 the Słupsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 30 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal amended the judgment and sentenced the applicant to two years and four months' imprisonment. The judgment is final.
8.  On 3 October 2002 the applicant sent a letter to the European Court of Human Rights. It was received by the Court on 21 October 2002. It bears a stamp “censored on” (cenzurowano dnia ...), a handwritten date “2 October” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.
9.  On 4 December 2002 the applicant sent another letter to the European Court of Human Rights. It was received by the Court on 17 December 2002. It bears a stamp “censored on”, a handwritten date “4 December” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.
10.  It also appears that both envelopes had been cut open and resealed with adhesive tape.
11.  The applicant submitted a photocopy of an envelope sent to him on 24 October 2002 by the Court. It bears a stamp “censored on”, a handwritten date “31 October 2002” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court. The applicant claimed that he had received the letter in an opened envelope.
12.  The applicant also produced a photocopy of an envelope sent to him on 22 November 2002 by “Amnesty International”. It bears a stamp “censored”, a handwritten date “28 November 2002” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Detention Centre, with a date of receipt (25 November 2002) and a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.
13.  Lastly, the applicant submitted a photocopy of an envelope sent to him on 28 November 2002 by “Transparency International - Polska”. It bears a stamp “censored”, a handwritten date “3 December” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Detention Centre, with a date of receipt (2 December 2002) and a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.
14.  On 12 June 2003 the applicant sent a letter to the Słupsk Regional Court in which he complained about censorship of his correspondence.
15.  On 30 June 2003 he received a letter from the President of the Słupsk Regional Court informing him that, according to the information obtained from the Criminal Department of the Słupsk Regional Court, the applicant's correspondence had not been censored. He further stated that the applicant's correspondence had been stamped “censored” by mistake.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  On 17 March 1999, after 27 years of military service, the applicant was transferred to the reserve. As he did not obtain a two-roomed apartment from the Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) to which he was entitled, he brought an action against it.
8.   By a final judgment of 23 November 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry to provide him with a two-roomed apartment.
9.  Since the Ministry did not have apartments available, on an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2000. In particular, he claimed money from the Ministry in lieu of an apartment.
10.   On 18 May 2001 the Centru District Court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2000 and ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant 83,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 7,133 euros (EUR) at the time). The Ministry appealed.
11.   On 4 July 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of 18 May 2001 and discontinued the proceedings aimed at modifying the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2000.
12.   Following a request from the applicant, the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment of the judgment of 4 July 2001. The request for annulment was upheld by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 5 June 2002 and the judgment of 18 May 2001 therefore became final.
13.  On 25 June 2002 the applicant requested the Centru District Court to issue an enforcement warrant.
14.  On 19 July 2002 a bailiff requested the Ministry to comply with the judgment in favour of the applicant.
15.  On 13 September 2002 the Ministry replied that the judgment could not be enforced because of lack of money.
16.  On 21 January 2003 a bailiff issued a payment order in respect of the Ministry in the amount of MDL 83,000. On 18 April and 25 July 2003 the bailiff informed the applicant that the Ministry had refused to comply with the requests to enforce the judgment and therefore administrative proceedings had been instituted against those responsible for non-enforcement of the final judgment.
17.  By a judgment of 26 February 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal discontinued the administrative proceedings against the Minister of Defence. It found that although the judgment in favour of the applicant had not been enforced, the Minister was not to be held responsible for the Government's failure to allocate money for that purpose.
18.  Between 2002 and 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment.
19.   On 15 March 2005 the applicant was paid MDL 83,000.
6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and, before his conviction (described below), he lived in Irtyshskiy, a town in the Omsk Region.
7.  On 16 April 1999 the police arrested and detained the applicant on suspicion of murder. After the investigation, the police accused him, inter alia, of shooting two persons and wounding two others, and submitted the case for trial to the Omsk Regional Court.
8.  The trial began on 17 November 1999. Before the hearing, the court excluded the public from the court room. Once the hearing had begun, the applicant's lawyer protested. He argued that the court had acted unlawfully.
9.  The widow of one of the applicant's purported victims, Ms G., had requested in camera proceedings because she feared “the defendant's friends and their threats”.
10.  The applicant stated that he saw no reason to hold the hearing in private. The public prosecutor supported Ms G.'s request “in order to ensure the objectivity of the proceedings” because, in his opinion, the victims and witnesses were under pressure and feared testifying in public.
11.  The court deliberated on the spot and decided to continue the hearing in camera in order “to ensure a comprehensive and objective examination of the case and to avoid any possibility of pressure on the victims and witnesses”.
12.  On 26 November 1999 the court found the applicant guilty of the premeditated murder of two individuals and the attempted murder of another individual in May 1993. He was also convicted of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm in April 1999. The court sentenced the applicant to seventeen years' imprisonment.
13.  On 5 January 2000 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. His lawyer argued, inter alia, that hearing the case in private had been unlawful for a number of reasons. First, under the Code of Criminal Procedure the intimidation of witnesses did not justify hearings in private. Secondly, the court had failed to identify any specific instance of intimidation. Thirdly, only bailiffs could effectively ensure the witnesses' security.
14.  On 7 June 2000 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal after the applicant's lawyers and a representative of the prosecution had been heard. However, the appeal judgment disregarded the complaint about the trial court hearing in private.
15.  On 6 December 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court reduced the applicant's sentence to twelve years' imprisonment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  On 5 May 2000 the Dzerzhynskiy District Court of Kharkiv (Дзержинський районний суд м. Харкова) awarded the applicant 4,489.02 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] against her former employer, the Frunzenskiy District Municipal Renovation Company (Державне комунальне ремонтно-будівельне підприємство з ремонту житлового фонду Фрунзенського району м. Харкова) in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final, and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.
7.  On 16 June 2000 the Kharkiv City Council (Харківська міська рада) ordered liquidation of the debtor-company and on 22 September 2000 the enforcement writ was transferred to the liquidation commission.
8.  On various occasions the applicant complained to the State authorities about the failure of the debtor-company to pay her the judgment debt and was informed that the collection of the debt was not possible on account of the debtor-company's lack of funds. The judgment remains unenforced to the present date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kemerovo. She was employed by a State enterprise FGUP PO «Progress» (Федеральное государственное унитарное предприятие ПО “Прогресс”). In 1970 she sustained a work-related injury resulting in the loss of her right hand, and became disabled. She became entitled to a disability allowance payable by the employer. As no payments ensued, the applicant brought proceedings for arrears.
5.  On 13 February, 5 August 1998 and 9 February 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Kemerovo awarded the applicant 26,510; 7,193 and 13,696 Russian roubles (RUB), respectively. It appears that partial payments in execution of those judgments were made between 1998 and 2002. The respective enforcement proceedings were terminated on 31 January, 24 May 2001 and 21 February 2002.
6.  By judgment of 15 November 2000, the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 20,279. The Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on 19 December 2000.
7.  On 11 September 2001 the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 20,000. The Regional Court upheld the judgment on 30 October 2001.
8.  In June 2004 the applicant was informed that the judgment debts would be paid to her after the claims of the priority creditors had been met.
9.  It appears that partial payments in execution of the judgments of 15 November 2000 and 11 September 2001 were made in 2002 and 2005. The respective enforcement proceedings were terminated on 26 August 2005.
5.  The applicant is an active officer of the Russian army in the rank of captain. He lives in St Petersburg.
6.  On 4 February 2004 the Military Court of the Sertolovo Garrison granted the applicant's action against his military unit and awarded him 304,487 Russian roubles (RUB) in wage arrears. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 17 February 2004.
7.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant sent a copy of the judgment to the military unit. According to the acknowledgment-of-receipt card, the military unit received the letter on 29 April 2004.
8.  The applicant complained about non-enforcement to the local department of the Ministry of Defence. By letter of 25 May 2004, the local department of the Ministry of Defence instructed the military unit to pay the judgment debt.
9.  The judgment has not been enforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.
5.  In 2003 and 2004 the applicant sued the local Social Security Committee for unpaid allowances and commodity benefits.
6.  By judgment of 1 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded her 19,315.50 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. On 2 September 2003 the judgment became final. The applicant received the monies on 8 June 2005.
7.  By judgment of 27 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50 for the period between 1 July and 31 December 2003. On 9 March 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the monies on 3 August 2005.
8.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
9.  On 7 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.54 for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004 and increased her monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.85 from 1 April 2004 with subsequent indexation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the lump sum on 11 November 2005.
10.  On 4 June 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30 in arrears, increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78 from 1 April 2004 and ordered the Social Security Committee to adjust the applicant's annual disability allowance starting from 2005 in line with inflation. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
11.  On 6 October 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 12,659.40 for the period from 1 April to 31 July 2004. On 18 October 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the monies on 11 November 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg.
5.  He brought a court action against the Finance and Control Committee of the Omsk Regional administration to recover the monetary value of the promissory notes issued by the Omsk Region.
6.  By a judgment of 24 July 2000 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the applicant's claim and awarded him 32,613.33 Russian roubles (RUB). The sum included the main debt of RUB 23,200, the interest in the amount of RUB 9,357.33 and legal costs of RUB 56. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 4 August 2000.
7.  On 9 August 2000 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service of the Omsk Region and on 4 October 2000 the bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant received the main debt under the judgment of 24 July 2000 in the amount of RUB 23, 200.
9.  By a judgment of 3 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg awarded the applicant RUB 7,407 as a penalty for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 24 July 2000. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it acquired legal force on 16 February 2004. On 18 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg issued a writ of execution.
10.  On 24 February 2004 the Finance and Control Committee was reorganized into the Ministry of Finance of the Omsk Region and its accounts in the credit institutions were closed.
11.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution for the judgment of 3 February 2004 to the bailiffs' service.
12.  The enforcement proceedings in respect of both judgments were discontinued on 21 April 2004 and the writs of execution were returned to the applicant who had been advised to apply to a court in order to define the debtor's legal successor and to resubmit the writs of executions to the bailiffs. According to the Government, the applicant failed to do so.
13.  On 12 May 2005 the Ministry of Finance of the Omsk Region transferred to the applicant the remainder of the court award of 24 July 2000. The judgment of 3 February 2004 was fully enforced on 21 February 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965. He is currently detained in the Edirne F-type Prison.
5.  On 6 February 1993 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by officers from the Anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, the TKP/ML-TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist Leninist -Turkish Workers and Peasants' Liberation Army).
6.  On 15 February 1993 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. On the same day the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody pending trial.
7.  By an indictment dated 5 April 1993, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and nineteen other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
8.  In the course of the proceedings, the State Security Court rejected the applicant's requests for release, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.
9.  On 12 June 2000 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to life imprisonment.
10.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant's conviction for procedural reasons. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination and the applicant remained in custody.
11.  On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant's case was transmitted to the Istanbul Assize Court. In the course of the proceedings, the domestic courts rejected the applicant's requests for release, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the documents in the case file. The applicant challenged these decisions under Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code; however, the domestic courts rejected all his requests.
12.  On 31 January 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
13.  On 20 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Assize Court and the case file was remitted to Istanbul Assize Court.
14.  On 4 October 2006 the applicant was released pending trial. According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir.
5.  The applicant was the representative of the Izmir branch of a political journal, namely the “Bread and Justice” (Ekmek ve Adalet) magazine.
6.  In April and May 2002, the Istanbul State Security Court declared several issues of this journal illegal and ordered their confiscation.
7.  On 21 May 2002 police officers conducted a search in the branch building, where they found some books, cassettes, magazines and compact discs, which they believed to be illegal.
8.  On an unspecified date, the Izmir public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant and, on 15 July 2002, he filed an indictment with the Izmir Magistrates' Court accusing the applicant of “not obeying the official authorities' order” under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 6 September 2002 the Izmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, issued a penal order pursuant to Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and sentenced the applicant to three months' imprisonment and a fine. The imprisonment measure was then commuted to a fine and the applicant was sentenced to a total fine of 381,682,144 Turkish liras (“TRL”)[1].
10.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant challenged this decision before the Izmir Criminal Court. On 3 December 2002 that court dismissed the applicant's appeal without a hearing. The applicant was notified of this final decision on 12 December 2002.
11.  Because the applicant failed to pay her fine, on 21 January 2003, the Karşıyaka public prosecutor transformed the fine into a sentence of imprisonment. The applicant was imprisoned in April 2004 and was later released on probation due to good conduct.